Disposed

The Kerala High Court Gazetted Officers Association v. State of Kerla

Kerala HC24 Jun 2016WP(C)/16607/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court noted that while the main Government Order implementing Pay Commission recommendations was issued for High Court staff, it overlooked specific addendum and erratum recommendations previously highlighted by the Court. The Petition was disposed pending a fresh decision on those specific points.

What did the court decide?

Directed competent authority to take a considered decision on Addendum/Erratum recommendations within 2-3 months; G.O.P.No.180/2016 recorded.

The Kerala High Court Gazetted Officers… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/3RD ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 16607 of 2016 (R)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

1. THE KERALA HIGH COURT GAZETTED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION REG.NO.168/1973,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI,ERNAKULAM-682031,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT:JOHN T. SAM.

¶8

2. THE KERALA HIGH COURT STAFF ASSOCIATION REG.NO.14/1957,

¶9

HIGH COURT OF KERALA,KOCHI,ERNAKULAM-682 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT:JITHESH P.

¶10

3. JOHN T. SAM, SECTION OFFICER/COURT OFFICER,CO SECTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,KOCHI,ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶11

4. JITHESH P., ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER,"D" SECTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,KOCHI,ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

BY ADV. DR.K.P.PRADEEP

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1. STATE OF KERLA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY(HOME), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

3. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY(FINANCE), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

4. HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT,KOCHI-682 031.

msv/

-2-

-2-

WP(C).No. 16607 of 2016 (R)

¶22

5. CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, KERALA OFFICE OF THE CEO, ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.

¶23

6. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, NIRVACHAN SADAN,ASHOKA ROAD,NEW DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶24

*** ADDITIONAL R7 & R8 IMPLEADED**

¶25

7. THE KERALA HIGH COURT STAFF FEDERATION, REGISTER NO.255/6, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031, REP; BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶26

8. SMT.BINDU K.K., PRIVATE SECRETARY TO JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶27

¶28

ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD.6.5.2016 IN IA.5921/2016

¶29

R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.V.ELIYAS R4 BY ADV. SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL R5 & R6 BY SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,ELE.COMMN. R7 & R8 BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

msv/

¶32

WP(C).No. 16607 of 2016 (R)

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶35

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS)NO 214/97/HOME DATED 27-08-1997 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶36

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS)NO.583/2013/FIN. DATED 30-11-2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶37

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS)NO.79/2014/FIN DATED 22.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶38

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.FW/J3/49631/2014 DATED 11-06-2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶39

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(MS)NO.32/2015/FIN DATED 16-01-2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶40

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.FW/J3/49631/2014/1 DATED 31-01-2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE MEMBER SECRETARY, 10TH PAY REVISION COMMISSION

¶41

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 10TH PAY REVISION COMMISSION,KERALA ON THE REVISION OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF EMPLOYEES OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN JULY,2015

¶42

P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO(P)NO.7/2016/FIN DATED 20.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶43

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶44

-----------------------

¶45

EXT.R7(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM AND ADDENDUM OF TENTH PAY REVISION COMMISSION AUGUST 2015 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

W.P(C).No.16607 Of 2016

¶51

Dated this the 24^th day of June, 2016.

¶52

J U D G M E N T

¶53

It is averred by the petitioners that in July, 2015, the 10th State Pay Revision Commission had submitted its two reports, one in the matter of recommendation for revision of pay and allowances and other benefits of State Government employees and the latter with respect to revision of pay and allowances and other benefits of High Court employees. It is pointed out that the 1st respondent-State Government had issued Ext.P-8 G.O(P). No.7/2016/Fin dated 20.1.2016 implementing the recommendations with respect to the pay revision of State Government employees with effect from 1.7.2014. That further with respect to the employees of the High Court, orders in that regard for implementation of the recommendation of the State Pay Commission were not issued and that there was no justifiable reason to delay the consequential order with respect to High Court employees alone. It is therefore urged that the inaction in that regard of

¶54

: 2 :-

¶55

official respondents 1 to 3 is highly arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. Further it is also submitted that it has been learnt by the petitioners that as on 11.1.2016, the Registrar General of the 4^th respondent-High Court has requested the Government for implementation of the recommendations of the 10^th Pay Revision Commission to the High Court employees also, simultaneously along with that of the State Government employees. It is urged that in view of Ext.P-1 Government Order, the employees of the 4^th respondent are also entitled to the pay revision benefits. Hence it has been urged that the State Government is not justified in delaying the revision of pay, allowances and other benefits recommended by 10^th Pay Revision Commission in its Ext.P-7 report to the High Court employees. It is in the background of these facts and circumstances as disclosed in the pleadings herein that the petitioners have

¶56

instituted the instant Writ Petition with the following reliefs:

¶57

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other writ or order or direction to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents to issue appropriate orders implementing Ext.P7 report of the 10th Pay Revision Commission, with respect to the employees of the High Court of Kerala; ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction to the 5th and 6th respondents to grant necessary sanction or no objection for issuing appropriate executive orders implementing Ext.P7 report of the 10th Pay Revision Commission with respect to the employees of the High Court of Kerala; iii. Direct the respondents to pay cost of this proceedings iv. Grant any other relief, in the interest of justice, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶58

This Court after admitting this Writ Petition, had passed several orders as can be seen from orders dated 3.5.2016, 6.5.2016 and 30.5.2016 in the matter. There is no necessity to get into the details of the same, in the light of the view that is proposed to be taken by this Court in the disposal of this matter. But, suffice to say, when the matter was taken up for consideration on 17.6.2016, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 had submitted that necessary formal orders in compliance with the direction issued by this Court as per orders dated 3.5.2016, 6.5.2016 and 30.5.2016 in the matter of implementation of Pay Revision for High Court employees will be issued within 2-3 days. Today when the matter was taken up for consideration, learned Government Pleader on instructions from respondents 1 to 3 has made available before this Court for perusal a copy of the Government Order, G.O(P).No.180/2016/Home dated 20.6.2016 and stated that the recommendations of the Pay Revision have been implemented in the case of High Court employees. The said Government Order dated 20.6.2016 without its appendices reads as follows:

¶59

“GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

¶60

- : 4 :-

¶61

Abstract

¶62

Home Department- High Court Establishment - 10th Pay Revision- Revision of Pay and Allowances to the Staff of the High Court - Sanctioned - Orders issued.

¶63

HOME (C) DEPARTMENT

¶64

G.O(P)No.180/2016/Home Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 20.06.2016

¶65

Read:- 1. G.O.(Ms)No.583/2013/Fin dated 30.11.2013.

¶66

G.O(Ms)No.79/2014/Fin dated 22.02.2014

¶67

G.O(Ms)No.32/2015/Fin dated 16.01.2015.

¶68

Letter D.O.No.FW/J3/49631/2014 dated 06.11.2015 from Justice Ashok

¶69

Bhushan, Chief Justice, High Court of Kerala addressed to Hon'ble Governor of Kerala.

¶70

G.O(P)No.07/2016/Fin dated 20.01.2016.

¶71

O R D E R

¶72

As per Government Order read as 1st paper above, Government had set up the 10th Pay Revision Commission with Justice C.N.Ramachandran Nair (Retd) as Chairman to study and submit recommendations regarding the revision of pay and allowances of State Government Employees. Government as per Order read 3rd above entrusted the same Commission to study and make recommendations on revision of pay and allowances and other benefits of High Court employees confining to the Terms of Reference in the Government Order read as 2nd above. The Commission after consideration of the demands raised during discussions and proposals made by the Hon'ble High court and all other relevant aspects submitted the Report on the revision of pay and allowances of employees of the High Court of Kerala to the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted a Committee of Judges of the High Court to examine the report of the Pay Revision Commission and make specific proposals so as to enable him to frame rules as envisaged under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. The Judges Committee agreed to the recommendations of the Commission in almost all cases of pay, allowances, ratio with a few exceptions. The Judges Committee suggested higher scales of pay for a few posts in the High Court than as suggested by the Commission.

¶73

The master scale of pay recommended by the 10th Pay Revision Commission for the State Government employees was restructured by Government vide reference read as 5 above. The pre-revised master scale and the revised master scale recommended in both the Government and the High court cases are one and the same and mutually applicable. Accordingly, the master scale and the pay scales applicable in the case of State Government employees as shown in the Annexure-I of G.O.(P) No.07/2016/Fin dated 20.01.2016 is applicable in the case of High Court employees as well.

¶74

: 5 :-

¶75

After having examined the Report of Pay Revision Commission for High Court Employees and the Report of Judges Committee, in line with general fiscal position of the State, revision of pay and allowances sanctioned to State Government employees, duties and responsibilities of various categories of posts in High Court and scale of pay sanctioned to different categories of posts in Government Secretariat and other Government departments, as the case may be, the following orders are issued under the proviso to Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India.

¶76

The existing scale of pay of the employees of High Court is revised w.e.f. 01.07.2014. Revised pay will be admissible with the salary of February 2016 onwards. The date of effect of revised rates of monthly allowance will be with effect from 01.02.2016. Periodical allowances will have effect from 01.04.2016. Modification to Rule 28A and 37(a), Part I KSR will apply to promotions taking effect from 01.02.2016.

¶77

The revised scales of pay corresponding to the existing scales of pay and the master scale is as shown in Appendix I.

¶78

The Schedule of posts and revised scales of pay is as shown in Appendix

¶79

II.

¶80

The rules of fixation of pay as shown in Annexure II of the Government Order read as 5th paper above shall be applicable to the staff of the High Court.

¶81

The revised rates of Special Allowance and Compensatory Allowance shall be as in Appendix III.

¶82

The revised scheme of Time Bound Higher Grade shall be as shown in

¶83

Appendix IV.

¶84

The existing/improved ratio of higher grade promotion relating to various categories of posts is indicated in Appendix V.

¶85

The revised pay for part time contingent employees is shown in

¶86

Appendix VI.

¶87

Unless otherwise mentioned in the order, all other conditions will be in accordance with G.O.(P)No.07/2016/Fin dated 20.01.2016. Except for pay, allowances, post upgradation and other specific benefits, further orders issued in continuation of the order dated 20.01.2016 shall also be applicable to employees of High Court.

¶88

Detailed order on pension revision will be issued separately.

¶89

(By order of the Governor)

¶90

NALINI NETTO

¶91

Additional Chief Secretary to Government.”

¶92

A copy of the above said Government Order has been made available

¶93

for perusal of the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners and the

¶94

: 6 :-

¶95

learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and the learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 7 & 8. During the course of the submissions of various parties, Sri.Brijesh Mohan, learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 7 & 8 submits that a mere perusal of the above said Government Order dated 20.6.2016 would show that the Government has not taken into consideration the crucial directions issued by this Court on 6.5.2016 and 17.6.2016 in the matter of consideration of Ext.R-7(a) erratum and addendum recommendations of the Pay Commission, etc. Learned counsel for respondents 7 & 8 would also submit that it was clearly submitted on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 before this Court on 30.5.2016 that the Government has already accorded approval for implementation of the recommendations, etc., and that it was also submitted by them on 17.6.2016 before this Court that necessary formal order in compliance with the directions issued by this Court as per various orders issued on 3.5.2016, 6.5.2016 and 30.5.2016 will be issued within the shortest time, etc. Accordingly, it is urged by them that the issuance of the above said Government Order dated

¶96

: 7 :-

¶97

20.6.2016 is not after due consideration of Ext.R-7(a) erratum and addendum recommendations and therefore, it is not in compliance with the orders dated 6.5.2016 and 30.5.2016, 17.6.2016, etc.

¶98

A perusal of the abovesaid G.O(P) dated 20.6.2016 does

¶99

not disclose that there has been effective consideration of Ext.R-7(a) addendum and erratum recommendations. Therefore, in the light of the aforestated orders of this Court, more particularly, those passed on 6.5.2016, 30.5.2016 and 17.6.2016, it is only just and fair that necessary orders are issued so that the Government takes a considered decision on Ext.R-7(a) recommendations as well, instead of keeping the main matter pending for any detailed adjudication on those aspects. So the main matter could thus be disposed, by passing necessary orders in that regard and by recording the issuance of the said G.O(P) dated 20.6.2016 and granting liberty to all concerned to ventilate their further grievances, if any, in appropriate

¶100

proceedings. None of the parties have any serious objections to this course of action.

¶101

Heard Dr.K.P.Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶102

: 8 :-

¶103

learned Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 3, Sri.P.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent-High Court, Sri.Murali Purushothaman, learned counsel for respondents 5 & 6 and Sri.Brijesh Mohan, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents 7 & 8.

¶104

In view of the aforementioned aspects, it is ordered that the competent authority among official respondents 1 to 3 will take a considered decision in the matter of implementation of Ext.R-7(a) addendum and erratum recommendations, after taking into account the considered views of the 4^th respondent, on the basis of the materials already made available by them, in that regard and it will also be open to the respondent Government to seek any further clarifications or materials from the 4th respondent, if so required. The exercise in that regard may be endeavoured to be completed by the competent authority among official respondents 1 to 3, without much delay, preferably within 2-3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The issuance of G.O(P) No.180/2016/Home dated 20.6.2016 is recorded. It is also made clear

¶105

: 9 :-

¶106

that liberty is reserved for those having any other grievances arising out of the said G.O(P) dated 20.6.2016, to raise such issues before the appropriate authorities/forum.

¶107

In the light of the aforestated aspects, the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Civil) stands disposed.

¶108

bkn/-

¶109

Sd/-

¶110

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True Copy///

¶111

P.S. to Judge

The Kerala High Court Gazetted Officers Association v. State of Kerla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kerala High Court Gazetted Officers Association v. State of Kerla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S. Jayaprakash Vs State of Kerala

Baby Vs Subin P.J.

Vasu K.K & Another Vs State of Kerala & Another

Dr. Athira C.J Vs Principal ,N.S.S College

Mrs. Anne Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Tony K. Raphael Vs Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit